The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad sets aside extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act as there was no deliberate intention on the part of the assessee in late filing of ST Returns.
The sole submission advanced by B.L. Narasimhan, Counsel for the appellant, M/s Reciprocal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd is that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 73 (1) of the Finance Act could not have been invoked. The Counsel has, however, very fairly stated that the demand of service tax for the period which is within the normal period of 18 months from the relevant date may be confirmed.
The appellant filed a detailed reply specifically contending that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was contended that the appellant filed all the ST-Returns during the period from 2008-09 to 2012-13 and though a mistake may have been committed in filing the return, but it was not with an intention to evade payment of service tax.
The Counsel for the appellant also contended that the impugned order does not deal at all with the invocation of the extended period of limitation. It was absolutely necessary for the adjudicating authority to form an opinion that the appellant had deliberately suppressed material information with an intention to evade payment of service tax. Unless the adjudicating authority had come to a conclusion that the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked in the show cause notice, it could not have confirmed the demand for any period beyond the normal period of limitation.
The Bench consisting of Justice Dilip Gupta, President and P Anjani Kumar, Technical Member observed that “the confirmation of demand for the period beyond the normal period of limitation by invoking the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act cannot be sustained. However, as has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant, the confirmation of demand for the period within the normal period is sustained.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
